do I have muppet written on my forehead?

[1man1desk]

The trouble is, Troll, that most curators don't write specs; they write briefs, which often don't do much more than define the type of fieldwork to be done and the format in which the SMR wants to receive input. IFA standards make it clear that a brief is not suitable to be used either for tendering or as a project design, but they very often are used for both.

Consultants do write specs, in our case pretty detailed ones, and we can put in methodology in much more detail. We do it mainly to ensure a level playing field in tendering, which tends to disadvantage the cowboy units.

Curators are usually very happy that we do the specs, because it gives them the chance to have much more control than under their own briefs, without using any more of their own resources. In fact, if we are involved, they usually dispense with the brief altogether in favour of simply consulting on and ultimately approving the content of our spec.

However, doing the spec also enables us to cover H&S issues thoroughly. In cases where there are potential contamination issues, we usually get advice from experts in that field within our own company and amend the methodology to suit, putting relevant safety provisions in the spec. There have been occasions when (in agreement with the curator) parts of an evaluation, for instance, have been dropped or changed to boreholes because of contamination safety issues.

Curators are not suitable to oversee H&S because they have no specialist expertise in that area. Neither do we - we simply put appropriate rules in the spec. However, any large construction site operates under the CDM regulations and that imposes a requirement for the involvement of H&S specialists (as 'planning supervisors', a dedicated H&S role), who are responsible for everyone on site - including the archaeologists.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[troll]

1man1desk-thankyou, hope you are well and ready for yet another monday? So, good old CDM regs apply on larger sites... what about us little guys on endless small sites? I suppose that all I am asking is this- can HS requirements that are site/phase specific be placed as integral components of specs?

[1man1desk]

H&S requirements go in all our specs as standard, and we enforce them as well as we are able.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[achingknees]

quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle

The short answer to this is that a 1/3 of archaeologists have witnessed a major accident in the last 12 months including fatalities. This indicates to me there is a major H&S issue industry wide that needs investigating. What is needed is that everybody takes note of the BAJR survey and reviews their practices immediately. The IFA, SCAUM & BAJR should use their resources to carry out a more rigorous study. Diggers tell your unit manager about the survey.



I am not convinced it is a consultant job to enforce H&S standards, should we check diggers (sorry archaeologists) have washed their hands before tea break or make that a contractual obligation?

I'm not sure that we should altogether trust the survey results - they are unverified. I would bring up such issues with a unit manager if they were verified. Seriously, where has there been a fatality of an archaeologist?

Re consultants (or anybody) making diggers/archies/stratigraphers wash their hands. No, but you might state in the spec a requirement for hand washing facilities (preferably warm water).

[troll]

Agreed- the BAJR poll is of course open to question and I know of no fatalities in British archaeology yet. In terms of who specifies what HS requirement in whatever document is largely a matter for semantics-how the overall HS culture in archaeology manifests itself on the ground is really what matters and is surely the object of the exercise. I think the sheer volume and indeed, tone, of the responses on this thread illustrate (somewhat disturbingly) just how far away we are from other industries in terms of HS culture. After 20 years, we can`t even standardise archaeological practise across the board despite guidelines and an institute in place. At least, lets get HS right.Across the board. Mate of mine working in the deep south sent me a copy of his firms listing of training priorities for the year. HS training ranked number twelve. Eight places below medieval pot........

[Penfold]

quote:Originally posted by troll

Eight places below medieval pot........

No surprise there then eh? I have not been in this business long so cannot speak as confidently as most on the long term problems, but as I was a Health, Safety and Environmental advisor in a previous incarnation I do feel that I can say (with confidence) that the current state of play with regard to H&S is a shambles, and that is where any kind of H&S culture exists at all. You turn up on site day one, and if you are lucky you get to read the job spec, read and sign the Risk Assessment (Though how many actually read the thing is another matter). Now it seems the unit has fulfilled it's contractual obligation, so lets not spoil the ambience by mentioning H&S again We've all worked on sites with inadequate resources in the way of tool's, 2 wheelbarrows, at least one of which has a flat, three shovels one of which has no handle etc, and all of this for 12 staff, why then are we surprised that scant concern is given to basic safety elements, would'nt have anything to do with money would it?
What is nice to see is that Trolls thread has started a dialogue here
that seems to make people take notice, now it needs to be spread to the workplace!! Bring it on Troll, it needs to be done, sooner the better mate.
Penfold

[troll]

Seems to me that those with the ability to institute change are choosing not to do so. I have had streams of calls from circuit peeps outlining some of the most disgusting, arrogant and blatant contraventions of even the most basic HS legislation. Troll starting to get the arsehole and is twitching to jump on the red batphone labelled "front page of every newspaper in the country". We`ve been through these hoops before guys, on this issue, I`m not willing to simply discuss and be nice. How do we provide those who need it with a collective boot in the rear? Where are the changes? Who has sat up and listened? Am I talking to myself? We either do this in- house guys or in front of a very large audience.}

[eggbasket]

Are those that are calling you willing to stand up in court (or whatever) and actually state their own case? Do they have any evidence? And why have they not called the HSE to investigate the problems? Surely that is the way to keep the units on their toes?

BUT FIRST, have they actually approached their managers and made their points to them? The first port of call has to be the appropriate channels, which means putting in a formal complaint to your supervisor or their manager and this should be investigated properly. H&S is not something about which people should be faint-hearted, so they must inform their managers first, just out of responsibility for themselves and their co-workers. If they do not do this, and only call Troll, then they are failing in their own responsibilities too, which makes them as bad as the people they are complaining about. If normal due process fails then I would suggest a call to HSE to get them to investigate. As I understand it they will not mention your name so it should be safe enough. So, have they done all this first? Or have they just come straight to Troll?

Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Antiquarian

Manners maketh the man

[BAJR Host]

This is true.... procedure may seem like a pain... but it is the right way... HSE, Managers etc... if this fails, then other action can be taken.

On a slight tangent..

One of the 'topics' for the conference about Conditions, (including H and S) could have a final product of a Charter Mark document. a minimum standards that should and must be adhered to.. Archaeological COntractors can sign up to it (for free) but will have to maintain standards.

If there are clear breaches... gather the info and do it the way it says in the book... ie the H&S book.

Another day another WSI?

[the invisible man]

Sorry - just a minor quibble afrom a post from 1man way back in September that I've just spotted.

Construction projects are indeed subject to the CDM Regulations, and not just the construction phase - it begins with the design phase, at inception. The project does not have to be very large - from memory it is over 30 days duration or 5 persons on site - it is certainly of that order, which is very small for construction.

The planning supervisor is not responsible for anyone on site, or anywhere else. That is basically the responsibility of the "principal contractor" (and in fact everyone on site).

The planning supervisor is responsible for ensuring that the Health and Safety Plan and File are compiled, maintained and handed to the employer upon practical comletion. Note, not for doing it, just seeing that it is done. The PS is not an inspector and has no obligation to even visit site - they rarely do.

Very often the PS is not a different person, very often it is the architect who undertakes that role (provided that the practice is registered as Planning Supervisors which involves a three day course). The Principal Contractor (the builder) can be required to assume the responsibilities of Planning Supervisor when apponted to the contract.

Inspections and so on on site are usually carried out by the contractor's in-house H and S people. The HSE may carry out occassional unnannounced spot checks. The site manager is in practice responsible for on-site safety.

If a construction contract has commenced, anyone on site, including archaeologists, come under his wing so to speak and before commencing will have to submit to him (via his contracts manager perhaps) their own risk assessments, H&S policy and method statements, or they won't get through the gate. Generally H&S is taken very seriously in construction these days.

Just thought I'd mention it.

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.